Winamp has announced that it is "opening up" its source code
Winamp’s plan to “open up” its source code in September 2024 is generating equal parts nostalgia and skepticism. Commenters reminisce about Winamp’s lightweight, highly skinnable design and its influence on later players, but question the vague licensing language, delayed release, and whether the aging codebase can be meaningfully open-sourced given third‑party components. Many note that functionally similar or successor tools already exist—such as foobar2000, WACUP, and various Winamp-style clones—raising the question of whether this move is a meaningful revival or mostly symbolic.
Licensing, “Opened Up” vs Open Source
- Many are skeptical because the announcement avoids saying “open source” and provides no license details.
- Some expect a restrictive “source-available” model; others note companies have done similar reference-source releases before.
- Several point out Winamp uses third-party proprietary components (codecs, Gracenote, etc.), which complicates relicensing and may explain delays and vague language.
- There is debate over what licenses would permit: some stress that even GPL would still let Winamp’s owner control the “official” version.
Nostalgia and Ongoing Usage
- Multiple commenters still use classic Winamp daily, often v2.x or 5.66, praising its speed, low resource use, and focus on “just playing music” rather than being a library or streaming client.
- Visualizations and especially skins are seen as iconic; people reminisce about making and downloading skins, and about spin‑off tools (e.g., Milkdrop-like visualizers).
- Some personal stories describe Winamp skinning and plugin culture as career-influential and formative.
Alternatives and Clones
- Popular alternatives mentioned: foobar2000, MusicBee, AIMP, QMMP, Audacious, XMMS/x11amp, WACUP (community Winamp fork), and WebAmp (in-browser clone).
- Opinions differ: some see foobar2000 as Winamp’s true successor; others note its theming can’t replicate classic Winamp skins.
- For Linux/macOS, people cite various Winamp-like players, Wine compatibility, and ongoing clones, but some argue there is still no perfect “non-bloatware” player.
Timing, Business Context, and Motivations
- Many say the move is “20 years too late” and mostly nostalgic value remains.
- Others argue it’s still worthwhile: the Windows desktop version is effectively abandoned as the company chases a streaming service, so letting the community maintain it is better than letting it die.
- Some view this as a byproduct of financial distress; once the code has little commercial value, opening it becomes easier or at least less costly.
Desired Outcomes and Open Questions
- People hope for: a clean 2.x codebase, ports to Linux/macOS/ARM, better visualizers, and tools to inspect/repair old libraries.
- Whether the release will be fully FOSS, partly proprietary, or merely view-only remains unclear.